Search results

I really should have thought to check the 2e rules. They did a lot to clarify known pain problems. I do think I'm going to have to further than that though to clean up all the issues.

That's a campaign specific thing. My dungeons frequently had "traps" in the form of "check for disease exposure" (there are fleas on the dead animal, for example) and I did do monthly checks for disease exposure. And I did enjoy Wererats as foes quite a lot, and that's not just lycanthropy but...

If I revise the monk, my general approach of not gating things behind stats will apply. I think the only class that is likely to retain the pretty high bar to qualify for is Bard and technically Paladin but only because I'm likely to keep a pretty high Charisma as a requirement. And the reason...

That's just the normal way things work. This is referring to a situation where the caster declares intent to cast spells while not in melee, and the monster (say a bugbear) within say 9" of the M-U but not yet in base-to-base contact declares intent to close with and strike the M-U. I think 6...

Technically, it's not multiclassing - it's actually two different classes or two paths within the same class. You wouldn't do multiclassing things like half the hit points determined when you leveled up in one class or divide the XP among the two classes. Interesting, adding new abilities one...

I think that's kind of my point in a nutshell. It doesn't make sense given the long duration a spell takes to complete to take into account the fraction of a second longer it takes to strike with a two-handed sword compared to a dagger, especially given that this is a "close to melee" sort of...

@Mannahnin : Good informative post, but I do just want to note how incoherent it is in the fiction that the guy casting Fireball has to stand their dancing slowly and chanting for 18 seconds, and a guy with a two-handed sword is simply too slow to strike him before he finishes. There is a...

You have no idea how much I hate the monk. A rewrite of the class would be a gutting of it. I didn't allow it in 1e. I didn't allow it in 3e. If you wanted to play a monk in 3e, I would have directed you to the fighter class. If someone had asked in 1e I would have said, "It properly...

I can definitely see giving minimums for WIS and CHA instead of or as well as the ones I've listed. One good reason for doing that is the class has powers that make WIS and CHA good "dump stats", meaning you could play a Cavalier with 6 Wisdom and by mid-high levels you'd not be punished for...

I am very aware of that, but what I'm saying to you is that it doesn't make any sense. The complexities of that are handwaved away and left to the DM to work out. a) How much XP qualifies you for a class varies from class to class. Subclasses normally require more XP than base classes. So...

Yeah, I get it. It would get even worse if I rewrite the fighter to have special abilities. We don't want players gaining abilities by losing them. It's my intention to do that, per the way I've written things up, in most cases. The only case that I think it is thematic that you could...

Nope. That's a completely different issue that I knew about but didn't bring up. As I mentioned, height does follow a Gaussian distribution, but at the high and low extremes health issues take over and break the distribution. But you are completely missing my point. That's another but...

Yes, dual classing is a thing. And Lanefan is objecting to certain classes of fallen cavaliers being forced "unrealistically" to give up their martial careers. This is because as Lanefan conceptualizes his game world it's all based on materialism and education and training. And that's fine...

I literally put height in the essay as an example of where it would be true. I'd have to research. If the thing is true it would have to be true in a subset of the curve as well. So if power lifting fits, I'd expect at top power lifting competitions to see the spread between 1st and 3rd...

Yes. I know I should rewrite them but oh the pain of that job. I do miss segments and spell casting time though in later editions. Yes, it is, though I've been balancing most things around the idea if that if they aren't better than a weapon specialized fighter then they aren't broken...

There are ways to stretch them out using large numbers of foes. Most AD&D creatures are glass cannons. However, we've discussed this before. Your monsters have been hit point buffed considerably from RAW IIRC to solve the glass cannon problem, thus leading to longer fights. That's it! Page...

So I think there is a lot of what I'm doing here you aren't picking up on. First, "just carrying on as a non-specialized fighter of the same" level is a possibility I'd like to provide for in some sense, but there class really isn't "fighter" we are just saying that it is. And class levels...

I think, because most AD&D combats were over by round three (at the latest). So if you have a 3/2 attack rate in odd numbered rounds you are attacking 5/3 as opposed to the 4/3 of even numbered rounds. Odd numbered rounds is probably too good. In fact, I think I'd always played with you get...

1e AD&D specialization works basically the same way except you can get the full mastery at first level by "double specialization". It's a no brainer to specialize in a weapon and triple your damage output at 1st level. Say you would normally hit 35% of the time for 4.5 damage hit, or 1.575...

I think it's fairer to say that the rules here are vague regarding how things interact because they are not written up as a unified whole. You are certainly free to make that argument, and I see where you are coming from, but I don't think it's obvious that there is a correct interpretation...